On October 23, 2015, the Defendant received from the mother C a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Daejeon Chungcheongnam-gu Military Affairs Administration and the head of the Daejeon-gu Military Affairs Administration, that the Defendant “to be enlisted in the Army Training Center located in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 314, 603, and that “to be enlisted in the Army Training Center located in the Seosan-gu, Seosan-gu, Seosan-si on December 7, 2015” but failed to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Application of statutes to notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration, notification of enlistment in active duty service, results of registered mail delivery, and notification;

1. Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts constitutes an Act restricting the freedom of expression of conscience, contained in Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force against the Republic of Korea on July 10, 1990.

However, it can not be evaluated as a violation of the above regulations if the alternative service system has not been established.

Next, a wide range of discretion should be given to the legislators of member countries regarding whether to introduce the alternative service system. However, even if the peaceful co-existence relationship between South and North Korea is established and the understanding and tolerance of conscientious objectors are placed in our society, the consensus of members of the social community that does not realize equality of burden in the performance of military service and interfere with social integration is not formed, it is difficult to introduce the alternative re-delivery.

The judgment of this legislator is considerably unreasonable or clearly erroneous.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Finally, it shall not be construed that conscientious objectors are punished as a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without providing them with an opportunity to exempt or substitute military service and thus contravene the rules.

On the other hand, from the provisions of Article 18 of the above international rules, conscience is according to conscience.